Subject: Re: [Int-area] Last Call: <draft-thaler-iftype-reg-05.txt> (Guidelines and Registration Procedures for Interface Types and Tunnel Types) to Proposed Standard

From: Dave Thaler <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2019 14:50:40 +0000

S. Moonesamy wrote:
> RFC 2863 is a Draft Standard which states that it specifies a protocol. 
> draft-thaler-iftype-reg is about guidance for registration requests.  The write-up
> does not explain why the intended status of the document is "Proposed Standard".
> That is an usual (intended) status when a document is about procedures (e.g. Section 6.1).

Oops, that was not intentional, thanks for catching!  The intent was to follow the same
precedent as similar RFCs like RFC 7595, which is BCP and which I co-authored.  Hence
changed to BCP in the pending update.

> Section 6.3.1 states that "A link to some document is required".  The requirement is phrased
> in such a way that it leaves a lot of room for interpretation.  Does the person reviewing those
> (future) requests wish to deal with that?

It was already that way before.  https://www.iana.org/form/iftype says simply:
> Reference, Internet-Draft, or Specification (required - provide link):

The policy is unchanged from Expert Review, which is weaker than Specification Required
(which requires a permanent, public document), as elaborated on in RFC 5226.

Currently the draft is written to specifically address known issues that have actually occurred,
so it really is documenting best current practice.  So far, we have not run into problems yet 
with the flexibility as phrased.

Thanks for the review,
Dave